This article is so biased towards the buisnesses along West 7th. It does not actually inform the project about the project and the good that it will bring.

I hadn't heard that they planned to burrow under Fort Snelling before either - which the article states, besides mentioning the new adjacent Hwy 5 bridge across the Mississippi. I'm cool with that, seems far less disruptive to the whole Fort area, since it's quite the conjected area already. I'm exciting to see more about the new bridge and tunneling.

It's a new adjacent bridge - and I'm not really sure why it would be a fight? The existing bridge can't handle the weight, and even if it could, I don't see how trying to convert it to 1 car lane in each direction, like the UofM bridge, wouldn't be a bigger fight to pick!

The Friends of the Mississippi River generally put up opposition to any new river crossings--even a bridge for the Midtown Greenway adjacent to the existing rail bridge got the axe. But they might get away with it here since nobody could conceivably argue this stretch is pristine.

well... I just started a group called "Friends of train transit" and I/we oppose not building a new bridge & not giving trails their own lane so....

I think you're being sarcastic, but it would be nice if we had more coordinated and vocal transit lobbying. The FMR have been very effective at conservation and research, but also lobbying, grassroots organizing, and advocacy.

well... I just started a group called "Friends of train transit" and I/we oppose not building a new bridge & not giving trails their own lane so....

I think you're being sarcastic, but it would be nice if we had more coordinated and vocal transit lobbying. The FMR have been very effective at conservation and research, but also lobbying, grassroots organizing, and advocacy.

Yea I was, but yea it would be nice if we were more organized but that will never happen! ...I mean we all know why haha.

If we can call things like the A Line and the C Line "rapid transit" with only limited rapid transit features (only limited stops, off-board ticketing, and some signal priority) can we start calling this a "rapid streetcar"?

If we can call things like the A Line and the C Line "rapid transit" with only limited rapid transit features (only limited stops, off-board ticketing, and some signal priority) can we start calling this a "rapid streetcar"?

I did contact them, and if they go with a streetcar vehicle it will be apart of the METRO system and assigned a color.

I did contact them, and if they go with a streetcar vehicle it will be apart of the METRO system and assigned a color.

I think that's right for this line but would not be appropriate for the as-conceived Nicollet streetcar. That should probably get a letter designation.

I see it two ways though.

1) Riverview is basically LRT, minus a small portion that is shared right of way. So I can see why it is being considered for the METRO system. It also is rail and are other intracity rail lines are denoted by a color.

2) Nicollet Streetcar could go to either naming convention though. There will be people who say well it is a rail line in Twin Cities Metro, it should be a color, and vice versa for a letter designation.

For consistency, I think I would prefer all rail lines to have a color designation.

I'd say we should circumvent the issue by building Nicollet/Central as aBRT. If it is a streetcar, though, I agree that colors are the way to go for rail lines, even if the streetcar operates more like aBRT than LRT or hBRT.

I'd say we should circumvent the issue by building Nicollet/Central as aBRT. If it is a streetcar, though, I agree that colors are the way to go for rail lines, even if the streetcar operates more like aBRT than LRT or hBRT.

I have talked to the Manager of aBRT at Metro Transit, and they aren't ruling out aBRT on Nicollet Ave even if the city of Minneapolis builds streetcar. I think that is mainly due to needing to serve past Lake St she said.

I'd say we should circumvent the issue by building Nicollet/Central as aBRT. If it is a streetcar, though, I agree that colors are the way to go for rail lines, even if the streetcar operates more like aBRT than LRT or hBRT.

Except we've already explicitly decoupled colors from mode. We've already said just because something is on rubber tires doesn't mean it shouldn't get a color. The converse is that just because something is on rail doesn't mean it should get a color.

I agree with EOst, stop spacing, capacity and frequency/availability are way more important than mode. It makes more sense to me that colors=limited stop, high capacity, high availability.